From what I've observed, the biggest issues with Windows 10 are policy issues. Forced upgrades, forced telemetry, and deceptive/annoying attempts to get people to upgrade to it from Win7 and Win8.
Most people skipped Windows 8 or tried it and quickly switched back to 7. And, because Windows 8 wasn't a hostile creature trying to take over your PC, it was pretty easy to choose not to use it. Windows 10 is pretty much just Window 8 excepted it's being forced on users.
NT 4.0 was gold, I wish they would release a version of W10 (Windows NT 9.0?) which has all the goodies and none of the dreck. That way I could test websites in their two entire web browsers without being marketed Office 365.
In addition to the two actually dropped in Japan, the US and Russia have been close to accidentally firing nuclear weapons since then, in each case because they thought they were getting ready to respond to what they thought was an aggressive act. It's just not a good idea to have nuclear weapons at all.
So, instead of "no first use", I would just have a global agreement never to have or use nuclear weapons for any reason, not even for defense.
Weapons by their nature will continue to escalate as long as technology improves, so if nuclear weapons continue to be allowed, time will surely bring a weapon even more destructive to counter them. Whether you believe they've brought peace or not, do you want someone to invent an even greater weapon and test it as the next "weapon of peace"? I don't.
>including for spacecraft in space- something which was outlawed years ago.
What are you talking about? NASA is facing a plutonium-238 shortage, but that is because we ran out of our stock-pile that was produced as a by-product of bomb manufacturing. Production of plutonium-238 started again back in 2013.
The only international laws I could find regarding nuclear spacecraft seem to be reasonable safety requirement (eg, not crash into Earth while still radioactive).
>So, instead of "no first use", I would just have a global agreement never to have or use nuclear weapons for any reason, even for a defensive strike.
The problem is that this policy removes the main dynamic that has prevented use of nuclear weapons: the threat of reprisal. If a country (verifiably) agrees to never use nuclear weapons, then a bad actor country can safely break the agreement. Under the current system this does not happen, because that would lead to a nuclear counter attack.
NASA uses plutonium for radioisotope thermoelectric generators whereas the OP is talking about nuclear pulse propulsion, which uses the shockwave from nuclear warhead detonations to propel a spacecraft. These are two fundamentally different things. The latter is illegal in most countries because of the aforementioned Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which bans any atmospheric or outer space detonations.
Yes but unfortunately after the UTC research was canceled all development on the nuclear lightbulb design was stopped while other methods of nuclear propulsion received at least some mindshare from theoreticians and engineers. The nuclear lightbulb now rots in the NASA technical archives. Most of the engineers who worked on it are dead and we haven't made much progress on the material science needed to pull it off (I.e. we still don't have a solution to neutron damage and runaway heating in the single crystal berrillium oxide sheath as well as a viable design for the fuel injector).
But we did actually build prototype engines of a similar principle. There were actual mechanical artifacts test-fired. This is a much more viable looking option then Orion which only proved the pusher-plate design seems viable on a small scale, and which is unlikely to ever clear the problem of "build a lot of nuclear weapons...then deliberately start setting them off".
> Many people don't handle the level of autonomy well, or don't stay motivated in isolation
But just because that is true for a number of people doesn't mean it is true for all.
I don't work from home anymore, but, personally, I always felt happiest when working from home.
I did have a remote job which sucked, and part of it was because it was remote and I didn't have as much familiarity with the code or the company and part of it was that the job just really sucked.
I think though that if you are already familiar with the code, know the people you are working with well, don't have significant problems interpreting what others say via IM/email and need to speak with them in person to get context, and just get a total morale boost when working from home because you are in your own world and can concentrate better, then- please!- work from home!
Are you a strong believer in putting a caret in front of every point?
I understand the association with up and optimism, but in this document, I think that it could be distracting the reader from the content you are presenting.
The carets are part of DeckSet's markdown extensions. This is the source for a presentation, and lines prefaced with a caret are turned into speaker's notes.
I imagine the inspiration for them choosing a caret is that carets are used to signal footnotes in some markdown flavours.
Wormholes for matter and energy are not incompatible with physics. We just probably won't ever see one like the one he proposed, because creating it would require manipulation of matter or gravity at extreme scale.
But, it is wrong to say it is impossible. It is theoretically possible.
What's there to argue with? He doesn't claim wormholes can exist.
> because creating it would require manipulation of matter or gravity at extreme scale.
Not extreme scale, using a type of energy that doesn't actually exist. i.e. it's not about the quantity of energy, it's the type. It's a mathematical result, not an actual thing.
> But, it is wrong to say it is impossible. It is theoretically possible.
No, it is not possible. See my other replies in this thread.
"...calculations in semiclassical gravity suggest that quantum effects may be able to violate this condition in curved spacetime. Although it was hoped recently that quantum effects could not violate an achronal version of the averaged null energy condition, violations have nevertheless been found, so it remains an open possibility that quantum effects might be used to support a wormhole."
> they didn't find correlations with acetaminophen before and after pregnancy, so that's 3 distinct factors just there
No, it's perfectly valid for a drug to only have affect on the growing fetus but where there were not studies proving harm to the child or adult, e.g. Thalidomide.
Something else that can help with being heads-down is medication. It's good to talk with a psych and see whether they can help.
And, don't forget to talk with HR at work if you don't think you'll get fired to see whether there is a way to reduce distractions. Many are more-than-willing to help- whether it's with buying some noise-cancelling earbuds, relocating you, letting you work from home, or another option. If it's a team member or more that is noisy or distracts you, mention that to your manager or HR.
1. I know it is tough collecting data, but a sample size of 97? It seems like there are a number of larger organizations that would be interested in participating in such a study if kept anonymous, and I really start to wonder about conclusions based on such small sample sizes, especially if it was only done at a single company or in a single geographic region.
Culture between companies and between geographic regions can be really different. For example, if you performed this study in Mumbai in a company where all of those involved in the study were die-hard workers that didn't believe in burnout, that would have seriously skewed the results and they still might have looked good statistically.
2. While it's evident to many that have been working several years or more that people tend to get promoted even when they'd be happier in lower non-managerial positions, and that promotion can end in unhappiness or burnout, what wasn't mentioned in the study is whether you really want power-hungry people in management positions just because it would be a better fit for their motivations.
I had some piss-poor managers that loved power and for them it was a good personality fit.
It might be better in many situations to have someone that doesn't want the power, is knowledgeable of the job of those they are managing, is well-respected, and is a great leader to lead for some years and burnout or leave than it would be to have a power-hungry imbecile with no respect from their team leading for many years because they are a good personality fit.
That said, I think that if you can find someone that is both a good personality fit and a great fit as a leader of the team, then that's better than promoting someone that will burnout, but only as long as it is just information used for decision between candidates and not a determining factor.
Here's what I feel about each Windows release I've used much (1=low, 10=high):
* - marred by experience w/Surface RT